MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387446214 · doi:10.1145/3611659.3615693

GazeRayCursor: Facilitating Virtual Reality Target Selection by Blending Gaze and Controller Raycasting

2023· article· en· W4387446214 on OpenAlexaff
Di Laura Chen, M. Giordano, Hrvoje Benko, Tovi Grossman, Stephanie Santosa

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSelection (genetic algorithm)Virtual realityController (irrigation)Intersection (aeronautics)AmbiguityConvergence (economics)GazeObject (grammar)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionMixed realityComputer graphics (images)Human–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Raycasting is a common method for target selection in virtual reality (VR). However, it results in selection ambiguity whenever a ray intersects multiple targets that are located at different depths. To resolve these ambiguities, we estimate object depth by projecting the closest intersection between the gaze and controller rays onto the controller ray. An evaluation of this method found that it significantly outperformed a previous eye convergence depth estimation technique. Based on these results, we developed GazeRayCursor, a novel selection technique that enhances Raycasting, by leveraging gaze for object depth estimation. In a second study, we compared two variations of GazeRayCursor with RayCursor, a recent technique developed for a similar purpose, in a dense target environment. The results indicated that GazeRayCursor decreased selection time by 45.0% and reduced manual depth adjustments by a factor of 10 in a dense target environment. Our findings showed that GazeRayCursor is an effective method for target disambiguation in VR selection without incurring extra effort.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207